[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 12

- 13365 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 4:11

- cr - 00278

- WTM

- GRS

- 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,
versus RICHARD LOUIS WILLIAMS, a.k.a. Ace, a.k.a. Ace Bouvier, a.k.a. Taz, a.k.a. Akashi Iman, Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United St ates District Court for the Southern District of Georgia

________________________ (Februar y 19, 2013) Case: 12-13365 Date Filed: 02/19/2013 Page: 1 of 62 Before CARNES, BARKETT and HULL, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: After pleading guilty, Richard Louis Williams appeals his 37

- month sentence for mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341. Defendant Williams’s offense involved using stolen rewards points from loyalty programs, such as Delta Airlines SkyMiles, American Airlines AAdvantage Program and Hilton Hotel’s HHonor Program, to purchase airline tickets, hotel rooms and merchandise. On appeal, Defendant Williams argues that the district court erred in : (1) finding a total loss amount of $46,773.56 , which supported a six

- level increase in his offense level, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(D); (2) applying a two

- level i ncrease for use of sophisticated means, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(10)(C) ; and (3) denying Williams a two

- level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a). After review, we affirm. The district court did not clearly err when it found that Defendant Williams’ s offense resulted in a total loss of $46,733.56 and imposed § 2B1.1(b)(1)(D)’s enhancement of six levels when a loss is greater than $30,000 but less than $70,000

. See U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(D). At sentencing, D efendant Williams did not object to some of the fraudulent purchases ( 12 flights, 2 hotel stays and 16 merchandise deliveries) the Presentence Investigation Report (“PSI”) attributed to him, which totaled $24,744 in losses. Furthermore, while the district

Case: 12-13365 Date Filed: 02/19/2013 Page: 2 of 63 court heard evidence of a larger conspiracy to fraudulently acquire and use frequent flyer and hotel loyalty points result ing in losses of over $400,000 , the district court held Defendant Williams accountable only for those losses for which th e government presented evidence showing links to Williams. Specifically, the government’s evidence tying loss amounts of $46,733.56 ( listed in the PSI ) to Defendant Williams included th e following : (1) the majority of the airline tickets and hotel rooms r edeemed with the fraudulently acquired points were in Williams’s own name or a slight variation thereof, and government

- issued identification would have been required to redeem the tickets and bookings; (2) witness es told investigators that Williams redeem ed some of the disputed airline tickets and merchandise; and (3) many of the disputed purchases were linked through common email addresses, IP addresses, phone numbers and mailing addresses to other purchases Williams admitted

. Given this evidence, the di strict court did not clearly err in finding that the government had proven by a preponderance of the evidence that at least $30,000 in losses were attributable to Defendant Williams. See United States v. Renick , 273 F.3d 1009, 1025 (11th Cir. 2001) (provi ding that, upon challenge, the government must prove the loss amount with reliable and specific evidence). That some of the government’s evidence was circumstantial does not render the district court’s loss estimation unreasonable or speculative. See Uni ted States v. Dominguez , 109 F.3d

Case: 12-13365 Date Filed: 02/19/2013 Page: 3 of 64 675, 676 (11th Cir. 1997) (stating that although the district court must not speculate as to the existence of a fact that would permit a more severe sentence, it may make a reasonable estimate of the loss involved); see al so U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1, cmt. n.3(C). According ly , the district court did not err in applying the six

- level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(D ). Nor did the district court clearly err in finding that Defendant Williams ’s fraud involved sophisticated means and thus applying U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1 0 )(C)’s two

- level enhancement. The PSI’s undisputed facts established that; (1) the fraud scheme, which operated for at least a year prior to Williams’s indictment, involved more than 46 victims and Williams’s fraudulent access to 43 secured accounts; and (2) Williams used multiple shipping addresses in both Georgia and South Carolina to receive shipments of fraudulently obtained merchandise in an effort to conceal his criminal conduct. Although Williams contends that his individual acts were not sophisticated, the district court concluded that “the totality of the scheme” was sophisticated, considering both Williams’s use of multiple aliases, credit cards, email accounts, IP addresses and shipping address es , and the sophistication required to gain access to victims’ accounts, which was sufficient to support the enhancement. See United States v. Ghertler , 605 F.3d 1256, 1267 (11th Cir. 2010) (concluding that “ [ t ]h ere is no requirement that each of a defend ant’s individu al actions be sophisticated[;]

Case: 12-13365 Date Filed: 02/19/2013 Page: 4 of 65 [r] ather, it is sufficient if the totality of the scheme was sophisticated ” ); U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1, cmt. n.8(B) (defining sophisticated means as “especially complex or especially intricate offense conduct pertaining to the execution or concealment of

an offense” and citing as example s the use of multiple jurisdictions or the hiding of transactions through the use of fictitious entities). Finally, the district court did not clearly err when it denied Defendant Williams a two

- level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. Even though Defendant Williams pled guilty, his plea did not entitle him to a reduction o f his offense level as a mat ter of right, particularly when the evidence before the sentencing court showed that Williams’s conduct was inconsistent with an acceptance of responsibility. See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, cmt. n.3. Specifically, undisputed facts in the PSI established that Will iams made false statements to federal agents during the investigation (denying h is involvement in the fraud scheme) and then made false statements to the probation officer conducting the presentence investigation (denying he was arrested and convicted of p rior felony forgery and escape offense s ) . Further, evidence presented during the sentencing hearing indicated that Williams falsely denied responsibility for almost half of the offense conduct through his objections to the loss calculation. Even if we co nsider only Williams ’s conduct after h e was indicted , as Williams argues, that conduct

— making false statements to the probation officer and falsely denying a significant

Case: 12-13365 Date Filed: 02/19/2013 Page: 5 of 66 portion of the underlying offense conduct

— is a sufficient basis to deny the acceptance

- of

- responsibility reduction. See United States v. Castillo

- Valencia , 917 F. 2 d 494, 500 (11th Cir. 1990) (explaining that we will overturn a district court’s acceptance

- of

- responsibility determination only if “it is without foundation”). For all these re asons, we affirm Defendant Williams’s 37

- month sentence. AFFIRMED. Case: 12-13365 Date Filed: 02/19/2013 Page: 6 of 6